This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egypt on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EgyptWikipedia:WikiProject EgyptTemplate:WikiProject EgyptEgypt articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
A fact from Al-Amir bi-Ahkam Allah appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 10 May 2023 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that medieval Muslim historians blamed al-Amir bi-Ahkam Allah for the loss of much of Palestine to the crusaders but, in reality, he played no role in the Fatimid government during that period?
Consistency with capitalizations of Caliph and Imam ("the tenth Fatimid Caliph, and the 20th Imam of the Musta'li Isma'ili sect" and "ninth Fatimid imam-caliph, al-Musta'li")
Fixed.
Do we know the names of his mother and his wife (the daughter of al-Afdal)
Gibb gives the name (or rather title) Sitt al-Mulk for his mother, but I haven't been able to corroborate it. The title is otherwise treated as unique for Sitt al-Mulk, the daughter of al-Aziz. Al-Afdal's daughter is not named in my sources (would have to look into primary sources likely). Will add if I find anything.
"… the main preoccupation of the Fatimid state was the conflict" → "… the Fatimid state was preoccupied with the conflict"
Rephrased.
Perhaps a little more context about the "territorial losses in the previous decade" and the Nizari schism. A footnote would also suffice.
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk pageorWikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
... that medieval Muslim historians blamed al-Amir bi-Ahkam Allah for the loss of much of Palestine to the crusaders but, in reality, he played no role in the Fatimid government during that period? Source: Walker, Paul E. (2011). "al-Āmir bi-Aḥkām Allāh". In Fleet, Kate; Krämer, Gudrun; Matringe, Denis; Nawas, John; Stewart, Devin J. (eds.). Encyclopaedia of Islam, THREE. Brill Online. ISSN 1873-9830.
ALT1: ... that the assassination of al-Amir bi-Ahkam Allah both undid his attempts to concentrate power in the caliph's hands and endangered the very survival of the Fatimid dynasty?Source: Brett, Michael (2017). The Fatimid Empire. The Edinburgh History of the Islamic Empires. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. ISBN 978-0-7486-4076-8. Page 261
Overall: Article improved to GA status on the 8th, 6 days before the nomination, just under the wire but still soon enough. QPQ satisfied. Article is well written and well cited. Random spot checks doesn't find anything, same with Earwig. Passages are reliably cited, though it was not easy getting a hold of the sources. I made one minor modification to the first hook, please review when able. No other issues noted, passing both hooks. 🏵️Etrius (Us)23:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Heyy, Neveselbert and Cplakidas: you (separately) removed links I'd put in "Cairo" and "Fatimid Caliphate" in the birth date field of the infobox.
I had seen them linked once within the infobox, but I chose to link them a second time at the place of birth as I figured (from my own behaviour) that birth- and death-date and place are spots where a lot of readers would glance first; Cairo being linked in the caption at the top would be completely lost, and perhaps readers wouldn't look at the caliph's title before his place of birth. What do you think, do you disagree with this rationale?
I only found out about MOS:GEOLINK while voraciously reading the manual of style for linking before posting this, but separate links to modern-day Cairo and the Fatimid Caliphate still make sense to me, as the Caliphate is a historical geographic place—and linking it here will provide important context about the historical state, at the expense of some link clarity, to readers who will glance at the infobox first. —I'llbeyourbeach (talk) 20:13, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
@I'llbeyourbeach I don’t disagree with your quite sensible suggestion, the problem is though that in any upcoming review process (I am planning to get this up to FA standard fairly soon) they will be required to be removed again per MOS. Constantine ✍ 20:20, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Article improved to GA status on the 8th, 6 days before the nomination, just under the wire but still soon enough. QPQ satisfied. Article is well written and well cited. Random spot checks doesn't find anything, same with Earwig. Passages are reliably cited, though it was not easy getting a hold of the sources. I made one minor modification to the first hook, please review when able. No other issues noted, passing both hooks. 🏵️Etrius (Us) 23:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
